Wing42 - Boeing 247D | Full Flight Review | Microsoft Flight Simulator
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 апр 2022
- Become a Channel Member: / @intothebluesimulations
Become a Patron: / intothebluesim
Donate Via Paypal: paypal.me/IntotheBlueSim?loca...
"Buy me a coffee" www.buymeacoffee.com/IntotheBlue
Channel Discord: / discord
In this video we take a look at the Wing42 Boeing 247D, within Microsoft Flight Simulator (MSFS).
We will be running the morning mail, from Chagual (SPGL), back towards the city of Trujillo (SPRU).
Please note this video and all its contents / materials, is for entertainment / simulation purposes only.
PC Specs
MSI B550M
AMD Ryzen 7 5800x 4.7GHz
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080
32GB DDR4 3600MHz
Hardware
Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog
Saitek Pro Flight rudder pedals
HP Reverb WMR headset
TrackIR5
Earthquake Shell Shoxx transducer
Enjoy the flight! 
Игры
![ian - Fit Check (Feat. VonOff1700) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sDGWDBg45Dw/mqdefault.jpg)
So when I was a teenager I spent a good bit of time working at the Museum of Flight Restoration Center at Paine Field, in the 90s when they had the last flying 247D based there, which meant that I got to hear it quite a bit. I feel like there are a lot of criticisms of some of the vintage aircraft based on modern expectations. This thing absolutely sounded rough, and the engines were cranky and constantly demanding attention (and oil!)
The Wing 42 sounds are not likely to be confused with the real thing, but A. they do evoke the real thing, and B. some of the weird effects you are hearing is because it seems they have simulated the sounds using Wwise for each cylinder, so that you can hear them running rough versus smooth. This, for me, in a sim, is far more rewarding than merely enjoyable engine sounds because it helps me figure out how to keep the engines healthy. For comparison, here's a video from the Museum of Flight of their start up ruclips.net/video/CkW8KP5Bwjs/видео.html
Another thing on the checklists, as far as I know, I don't think there are any historical ones available. There's no POH for the original airplane, since those weren't really a thing in 1933. The Museum of Flight and the Smithsonian have various maintenance manuals in their archives, though, and manuals for the Wasp engines are available. I know a lot of times the airplane checklists back then were created by the airlines that operated these planes, and since the 247 was never really widely adopted, I would find it easy to believe that if there ever were Flight Manuals none of them have survived.
That said, I do think that Wing42 could have saved themselves a lot of grief if they had given more detailed operating guidelines, such as checklists. For example, the plane needs to be leaned a lot more than most people do, which is a lot of folks are having trouble with the engine running too cold, and not manifesting adequate power. (It also doesn't help that their mixture and prop levers are pretty hard to manipulate in the virtual cockpit.)
Another part where their pursuit of realism might do with a bit of explanation is the gauges: there are bugs in the gauges for sure, especially the CHT (which they've said they're working on) but other times the readings are just slow, unreliable, or get stuck, and you are supposed to "tap" the glass by clicking on the gauge to make sure it's on track, and maybe jar it loose. This is a cool feature, but since it is basically unexplained, and because a simulated gauge inaccuracy is difficult for anyone to differentiate from the sim simply being inaccurate, they did themselves no favors by leaving this one for everyone to discover on their own.
As a counterpoint, though, I do think one of the strong suits of the documentation is the way they bullet point the things that are and aren't simulated. I feel like there is definitely a lot of room for growth here, to be sure, and it seems Wing42 has plans to go more in depth on features as MSFS makes it possible. In general, I'm looking forward to it, and while their pricing strategy already seems to be putting pressure on JustFlight, I hope that they also put pressure on folks to start looking at WASAM physics engines to bring more realistic simulations with failures. At least for me, flying a plane you can't break with an engine that always runs stead is significantly less fun.
A fantastic post Austin, than you very much for taking the time!
I’m always happy to stand corrected and as I mention in most of my videos, a lot of my opinions are educated guesses and conjecture; it’s often very hard to dig out the sort of information you have offered up here, about these vintage birds.
I think you have articulated what I was trying to say during the review, a lot better than I managed to haha: It is very clear that the Boeing 247 has received a lot of love and attention and has the making of a very complex and rewarding simulation. As it stands though, users are left somewhat in the dark and it’s very tricky knowing what’s a bug, what’s part of the simulation and what’s user error. I usually have a fairly decent grasp on operating these types of aircraft, but I felt I was left guessing with the 247. I feel without the documentation and correct gauge readings, it’s very hard to operate the aircraft within its limits, in a meaningful way.
A more padded out manual with more in-depth information would go a long way with this addon. I did see someone posted a pic of a section of Boeing 247 checklist - no idea where it came from, but even some custom Wing42 checklists would do the trick.
I think my review came off harsher than I meant it to be. I always point out faults where I find them (purely for viewer awareness) and the aircraft does have its fair share of faults; but of course the more complexity one adds, the more likely one is to create issues as well. Overall I think the Boeing 247 is a lovely piece of work from Wing42 and I’ve no doubt they will iron out the creases. I absolutely hope the product does well and that they receive the full support of the community!
Thanks again and all the best : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations Well I didn't exactly mean this as a correction so much as context. You are right - it doesn't sound quite like a real wasp. It falls into a category, like the unreliable gauges, where they tried to implement a certain kind of realism that is hard to appreciate. I find it really interesting because it highlights a fundamental difference between the sim and reality:
In reality if an engine is running rough, I know something is wrong with it, and I'll need to check it out. In a sim if an engine is running rough it can be difficult to tell from the user end if it is rough because it's trying to emulate roughness in real life, or if it is rough because the sound pack is rough, especially if it is a noisy and finicky engine. Because it isn't the same as reality, we can't use real world expectations as a baseline, so it is hard to figure out if it is falling short or succeeding. This is where a little more explicit documentation could have clarified expectations and saved the devs from having to answer the same questions over and over again. Wing42 is great about including historic manuals, but since there aren't many for the 247, they mostly included the manuals for the Radio Navigation, which is rad, but doesn't help people get the plane in the air.
I had tried to post a link in a sub comment to the Museum of Flight's PDF scan of the original Boeing 247 maintenance manual, but RUclips kept removing it (probably thinking it was some kind of link spam) but I would encourage anyone to actually google "Museum of Flight Boeing 247 Maintenance Manual PDF" you should get the link to the Museum's archives. The devs used this in creating the airplane, and it really explains a lot. For example, I see a lot of people confused about Carb Heat, and the old 1930s manual says explicitly: these engines normally don't recover from Carb Ice in flight, even with full Carb Heat so you really should fly with Carb Heat on continuously if you are at "high altitudes" and in the 1930s, anything over FL45 was a "high altitude." I still think their CHT gauge is bugged, and it sounds like they are fixing it, but the reality is that this is in many ways a very primitive airplane, and it requires a lot of things that seem weird. there's a reason the DC-2 eclipsed it. This is a plane with 15 hull losses in its first 10 years of operation, normally with no survivors. The guys who flew this for the museum are some of the best pilots I've ever seen, and even they struggle to get it started.
In general, I think it was a pretty fair review, balancing the potential against the current limitations, but that some of the complaints from the peanut gallery end up not being as nuanced, and I worry people are getting frustrated with the difficulty of the plane and thinking it is broken when really it is just trying to present something interesting within certain limitations of the sim as it exists right now.
@@IntotheBlueSimulations Also, I really love the channel and the way you engage all the genres of aircraft, from tube liners to antiques, and the way you have a commitment to checklists and documentation, so if you ever need a little help digging up some documentation on something obscure and old, DM me. I'm not always able to get internet (just about to head out for a year of research in the Himalayas) but if I'm online, I'd be glad to pass along anything I have or shake some trees to see if I can't find what you need.
Hi Austin, nice comments and good info about seeing the 247 at Museum of Flight and hearing the airplane in real life.
I have been playing with this bird as well and after reading the provided manual, there are a few things that a checklist would really help. I have also had engine failures while staying within the provided operating instructions for T/O, climb, and cruise. I agree the attention to detail and love in the making of a classic airliner (a type largely overshadowed by the DC3) that the 247 has enormous potential. When I broke down and bought the 247, I was astounded by the offering price. Looking forward to the updates that have potential to make this a landmark aircraft for MSFS.
@@andywerner400 So having had more time flying and understanding the plane, and doing more of my own research, a few things have become apparent. As I mentioned in several comments, the real airplane had a nasty habit of manifesting catastrophic failure while within normal operating ranges, so that is technically accurate if not particularly enjoyable. But I also have noticed a few things that are important to consider that might help you out:
1. MSFS basically does not simulate density altitude, as far as I am aware, or if they do, it is far less significant than reality, so we get used to flying in the sim without really thinking about the Outside Air Temperature. But while the 247 does not add a density altitude aspect to the aerodynamics, its physics engine does introduce the impact of the OAT on engine functions. If you look at any more fully featured POH, it won't give you a simple list of speeds and settings, it will give you a chart, and outline the performance settings depending on weight, altitude, and outside air temperature. This plane NEEDS this, but they don't provide one, and as far as I can tell, none were ever created by Boeing, and the Pratt & Whitney ones for the engines don't take into account the impact of the airplane and its systems. So one cause of failure seemingly within normal operating conditions is because your normal operating conditions were for one temperature and altitude, and at some point in flight, you entered into new conditions which put you outside of the green zone. You can create your own doghouse plot to determine these, but honestly, that's a lot more math than most people signed up for. A less certain but more practical alternative is just to fly quite cautiously, and monkey around with the oil cooler and mixture levers to try to keep the engines happy rather than flying by the numbers.
2. The manual only briefly alludes to this, but this aircraft DOES have state saving, and DOES simulate induced damage to the systems components. Unfortunately, your ground crew is absolutely reprehensibly irresponsible and only fixes damaged components if they reach the point of total failure. This also might be realistic to SOME airlines of the 1930s, but if it were MY airline, our digital mechanic Jack would be fired and I would hire a real mechanic who actually inspects and repairs the aircraft in between flights. Basically, this airplane REALLY needs a "hangar" mode like you see in A2A aircraft or in the Milviz 310, that allows you to inspect and repair components before they fail so you can have a general idea of the condition of your engine. Since you don't have that, the more you fly it, the more the airplane's performance will degrade, and the more likely it will be to to fail under normal conditions, especially if you have at various points exceeded limitations (see above problem of limitations changing with temperature and altitude).
The only way to solve this and trigger a reset of system damage is to absolutely demolish the airplane, at which point Jack begrudgingly gets out of his armchair and gets to work rebuilding the plane. There is no way to compel Jack to repair the plane before this point. So whenever I see the performance starting to slip and feel like the plane needs an overhaul, I hop in, fly it up to about a thousand feet, and then crash it into the ground with as much force as I can muster. This is why Jack and I are not friends.
If you want to take the time to dive into the systems mechanics, this aircraft has the potential to be a fantastic classroom for learning about engines, systems, and the fundamentals of flight, but currently, this classroom has neither teacher nor textbook, and the students are all on fire and plummeting towards the earth at an alarming speed.
Been refreshing for 2 days for this! Finally it's here!
Haha, well sorry for the delay Marek! XD
Unfortunately I have been very busy in the real world of late, but of course I wanted to take a look at this excellent little aircraft when I got the chance! ; )
I do hope your F5 key is holding up ok haha!
Thanks and all the best : )
Yet another GREAT flight with appropriate airports for the aircraft. Thanks for taking the time to produce the video given the hectic lifestyle and time restraints. We appreiate it! !! !!!
Thanks very much Mark! I appreciate your appreciation haha ; )
It’s a little bit frustrating for me, as I have a certain standard I like to meet (there were a tonne of features I would have liked to cover in this video, but was simply unable to due to time constraints), but it is what it is; real life obviously has to come first and I’ll continue to do the best I can, with the time I have available : )
Genuinely though, thanks very much! All the best.
25:07 is the best part! That music choice and the camera angles are amazing!
Thank you very much sir! Glad you enjoyed it.
I often like to do a little cruise montage in my videos and the scenery here was just too spectacular not to : )
All the best!
What song is this?@@IntotheBlueSimulations
Hi Sadpan,
The song is called "Adios Dime" by the Lecuona Cuban Boys.
All the best! : )
This channel is a treasure
This is an excellent and very comprehensive review of this product. Right to the point on both the good and what needs improvement.
Thank you very much Paul! I'm glad you felt it hit the mark.
Thanks for watching and all the best! : )
What an amazing adventure this was watching. The locations were just beautiful and what a gorgeous aircraft.
Thanks very much indeed Brave Heart! Really glad you enjoyed it. I wanted to make the flight feel like a bit of an adventure, so mission accomplished I guess haha.
Thanks very much for watching and all the best to you! : )
Great flight, great route, great review as per usual 👍🏻
Thanks very much sibzy, glad you enjoyed it! Cheers for watching and all the best : )
Another excellent video, thanks. I agree, diamond in the rough is a good description of the aircraft, hopefully it will live up to it's potential.
Thanks very much Sandhill, glad you enjoyed it!
I’m fairly confident Wing42 will get it right; they’ve clearly poured a lot of love and effort into the aircraft and I suspect it’s just a case of refining some coding here and there. . .
Cheers and all the best! : )
The Boeing 247 seems very tail heavy because he is always landing and taking off with the tail wheel on the ground vs. the DC 3 or Curtiss Commando C46 or C47 where you can’t take off until your tail wheel is free from the ground. Also, when it comes to radial engines, the sound is very hard to replicate and this add-on does it very well. I love these videos.
Hi Dylan,
Yes, I gather from the manual that it is indeed normal to takeoff / land in the 3-point attitude with the 247.
Someone else who actually has some experience with a real-world 247 stated that the sounds weren't half bad, so somewhat misplaced criticism there on my part (although I still think the flanging needs fixing).
Really glad you're enjoying the content! Thanks very much for watching and all the best : )
Please listen to this startup of a real 247 and tell me there isn't room for a ton of improvement in matters of clarity, clipped frequencies, sound detail etc. ;)
ruclips.net/video/CkW8KP5Bwjs/видео.html
If I’ve learned one thing about this bird since I bought it it’s that it glides like a dream. Oh and my engines out landing skills are now honed to perfection. ☺️
Haha! I may, or may not have had the same experience Peter. . . no comment XD
I'm completely blown away by this plane. Can't wait for a few things to get looked over and fixed, but otherwise I can't stop flying it.
Hoping that the hectic life is a good hectic and not a bad hectic!
Glad you're enjoying it Joe! As I said in my other reply, it is an amazing piece of work - just a few fixes and it will be one of the best MSFS addons available (it probably already is to be fair). I already have my next flight for the aircraft planned (I have 2 I would like to do actually).
Haha, not sure whether it's a good hectic or not. I'll have to get back to you on that. . . ; )
Cheers!
Excellent review as usual. I bought the aircraft, and I think it's great value. Ss soon as I get the engines started, I'll be in a position to comment on the flight model!
Thanks very much John, glad you enjoyed it!
I would have said "sorry for the slow reply", but 11 days might actually be just about long enough to have finally got the engines started on the 247? XD
All the best! : )
Geat video ITBS, I love the B247D, my favorite plane ATM…😊
Thank you very much sir! The B247 is indeed an excellent offering and certainly of the more challenging aircraft available for the sim currently.
There are a few issues that I would like to see fixed, but overall it is clearly an incredible effort from Wing42!
Happy flying! : )
Wow…..just had my first flight, what an aircraft! Flying in north AU so carb and engine temps seemed to be no problem. The attention to detail is insane with the ground crew and oil grad etc. Will be flying this for a while!
Hi Point Man,
Glad you’re enjoying the 247!
Haha, I had actually planned on an Oz trip for this video originally, but thought it would be nice to do something a little bit different (having done a couple of Aussi flights on the channel). The B247 definitely seems to prefer warmer climes and lower altitudes though. Those Wasp engines have given me no end of trouble up at higher alts / in cold air XD
There are a tonne of nice touches with this addon and I wish I would have had more time to touch on the engineering features etc during the review. . .
Happy flying! : )
Granted the flight was at 8000 also.
I noticed it takes a long time for oil temps to creep back up to operating levels after the oil coolers are opened for too long, could see it being a real problem at higher Alts for sure.
The attention to detail here took me by surprise, down to the fuses and the “old timey” music from the crystal radio! What an aircraft, will be one of the best after the necessary tweaks are implemented. Was disappointed with the JU52, but it did capture something cool, the 247 really hits that spot! Thanks for your review, your direction an scenario choice were perfect!
Agree absolutely point man; once the kinks have been ironed out, it’s going to be a very special and comprehensive addon. Definitely looking forward to a few more future outings.
My pleasure on the review! Thanks very much for watching and all the best : )
Great review as always. Not only the review itself, but the choice of route and the in-flight music is perfect!
As you say, it's really important to support these developers and I'll be buying this despite the misgivings around aircraft frailty, sounds and checklists. I find it odd that a developer can put so much love and care into a product, yet release it before checklists and sounds have been sorted out.... both of which are essential to fully enjoy the sim.
Anyway, thanks for more great content. Not sure I agree with your priorities of real life before creating videos, but hey, each to their own! 😀
Thanks very much Adam, glad you enjoyed it! For whatever reason, when I saw the B247, it really made me want to try a flight of this nature with it.
Yes, what Wing42 have created here is already a cut above most products and the fact that they decided to price it as they did - I think they deserve the community's full support (and hopefully it will be a mutually beneficial choice)! The aircraft does still need some finishing touches, but some of my criticism was perhaps slightly misplaced:
As another commenter point out; aircraft of this era often didn't have checklists, so it's not necessarily inaccurate. I still think that Wing42 ought to create a custom set of them though, otherwise we're all left a bit in the dark (and it sounds like they are indeed doing exactly that).
The same commenter has some experience with the real B247 and he said the sounds weren't actually that far off, so it's perhaps just the flanging that needs fixing up (and again, it sounds like Wing42 are working on this).
The gauges / temperature modelling still need some work; it sounds like there will be a couple of easy fixes involved, but some trickier ones also.
Haha, you're 100% correct!! If it were left to me, videos would of course come first; unfortunately the tax man and my wife have other ideas on that one though. . . XD
Cheers and all the best! : )
I love the "Antiques" ( as Austin kramer put it lol) and im having great fun flying this and the DC6 ,staggerwing ,Berlio and the Junkers etc.
Another thorough and interesting review and i agree with almost all that you mentioned and along with Austin kramer's post below its wonderful to read and listen to everyone's experiences and knowledge.But i must say ..Well done to Wing42 for developing this old timer at a great level of detail and a fantastic price!
Thanks everyone 👍😀
Yeah, I'm definitely in the same boat on that one Centurion! These vintage aircraft are proving to be some of the most enjoyable, challenging and rewarding aircraft to fly in the sim, particularly the 247 and the DC-6.
Austin's comments have been invaluable and it's amazing to have the insight of someone who has actually been in and around these machines - the 247 in particular, seems to be tricking to find much about online.
I completely agree; whilst the aircraft isn't without its faults, it's a stunning effort from Wing42 and they have my utmost respect on the pricing. It's great to see these smaller devs showing the big boys how it's done. I wish Wing42 every success - what's good for them is good for us!
Cheers and all the best! : )
I loved piloting A2A aircraft in FSX it's a shame they're not putting out content on the new sim. I understand the appeal of autopilot since keeping the attitude and heading for hours on end is not really fun or engaging but keeping an eye on aircraft systems and gauges is.
Likewise TGUYB!
I'm really hoping A2A are still pushing ahead to bring content to MSFS and I hope we'll see their back-catalogue at some point also. I'm not quite sure I could ever bring myself to uninstall P3D, so long as it's the only option for flying the A2A Spitfire.
Yes, personally I don't mind the lack of autopilot, but we all like to sim in different ways and I think a basic autopilot is a very reasonable concession. I would never want one that compromises the historical integrity / accuracy of the aircraft, but it would be nice to have either an optional unit, or some sort of interface through the provided clipboard. Hopefully Wing42 will consider adding one at a later date.
Cheers and all the best! : )
A really nice video and review ! Absolutely agree with your findings and comments ! I’m sure It will be improved by the developer who have my respect for putting out a great aircraft at a really good price ! In my first flight yesterday from Duxford to Heathrow I experienced a double engine fire 🔥 over London ! Luckily I managed to get this bird down in a park 😀 So I’ve got a lot to learn and practice ! Overall I like it very much ! Once it’s improved it’s going to be totally awesome ! Happy Landings 👍🙏🏻✈️👨✈️
Cheers Lee, glad you enjoyed it!
Yes, I have no doubt that Wiing42 will put in the work to finish up the final few issues with the aircraft; they've already done the hard yards and clearly they care about the product.
Haha, sounds like rather an eventful first flight! I hope you didn't disturb any Sunday afternoon picnics XD
Happy flying / forced landings haha! All the best : )
You can certainly see the pioneering engineering of the B17 in it.
You certainly can reedi. I spent the whole flight thinking "this view out the front really reminds me of something". It wasn't until someone else pointed it out to me, that I realised that "something" was the B-17 haha.
Cheers! : )
Per Wikipedia the 247 did offer an autopilot, a bit of a shame it wasn't modeled if that's the case.
just a couple tips from a pilot here! everything about this video was awesome, very well made and awesome quality! i would just like to add that on your takeoff with a tail wheel, dont have so much back pressure, let that tail wheel come up a bit hold it while you gain enough speed to surpass vmc(plus some) and then pitch. the only other thing was your landing. with any plane try not to land flat, especially with tail wheels. they arent meant to take the heavy landing forces(although they can) so try to level off and fine tune the landing without wheel barrowing!
Hi SDC,
Thanks very much for the kind words and indeed the feedback - I'm glad you enjoyed the video!
The backpressure during the takeoff was for a couple of reasons: 1) the B247 manual actually states that you should aim to become airborne in the 3-point attitude (somewhat unusual I know). 2) Tailwheel behaviour in MSFS can be pretty poor at times and I find that keeping in a little bit of backpressure (and keeping the tailwheel planted on the ground) can help to negate some of this poor behaviour.
As for the landing; I was trying to go for a 3-pointer, but yeah, may have overcooked it just a smidgeon haha ; )
Cheers again and all the best! : )
@Into the Blue Simulations My No1 go to MSFS review channel, I absolutely rate your reviews, So thorough, Knowledgeable and professional and great to learn from for a rookie like me, Obviously subscribed and liked! 👌
Hi Scotty,
Thank you ever so much for your kind words, hugely appreciated! Really glad you're enjoying the content and very happy you feel you're getting something out of the videos at the same time.
Thanks very much for subscribing - welcome aboard! : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations Cheers for getting back mate! I bought the 247D but yet to fly it! PC CPU upgrade this weekend!👍
Cheers Scotty, my pleasure! Best of luck with the PC upgrade and have fun with the B247!
Cheers : )
Thorough review flight. I've seen at least a dozen reviews of this vintage aircraft and all reviewers seem to be smitten with the aircraft and missing some important details, details or shortcomings, that you highlighted in your summary remarks. Wing42 will certainly address your concerns but until then, I'm passing. Thanks!
Thanks live2ride!
I can definitely see why everyone loves the 247 and indeed I do as well - it's impressive to see what Wing42 has managed to achieve, especially for the price, but it would be disingenuous to say that the aircraft is without fault (and some of those faults are not trivial either). I was actually a little bit surprised when I came to fly the aircraft, given that all I had heard was positives up to that point. . .
It's still an excellent product and as you say, I've no doubt Wing42 will do what needs to be done. They have the makings of a masterpiece on their hands and I wish them every success with it!
Cheers and all the best! : )
It feels like flying fortress, imo.
I love those big compass hung right in front, same goes for dc3... 👍
I believe the 247 is the base for the Flying Fortress no? Would be nice to evolve it to one actually
@@CyrilDeretz I don’t think it is. The B17 is bigger, has 2 more engines and just cooler
@@svanteforsberg5212 yes you are right of course, it did have four engines... My mistake
@@CyrilDeretz yeah I did some Google searches and found out that b17 is based on their experimental xb15 and b247. XB15's bombing capacity and b247's transport ability.... And the B17 was made.....
Ahhh, thank you! I spent the whole flight thinking that the B247 reminded me of another aircraft and I couldn't quite put my finger on it - it was the B-17! There's definitely a few parts of the 247's design, that you can see were carried through to the venerable bomber.
Agree on the compass haha.
Cheers! : )
Love your videos and your reviews of aircraft, and the knowledge you give others. Great review! One thing I have to disagree with, however, on this review was the comment about having an auto-pilot. This is an aircraft that had none and I believe Wing42 wanted to keep it as authentic as possible. I'm a guy who loves his airliners and their amenities. I usually fly the A320, CRJ, CJ4, 787, etc... All with a lot of AP functionality. The work I had to do to fly this thing was very immersive and I'm glad there is no auto-pilot option. Other than that, great review! :)
Thanks very much Ben, very kind of you to say!
Haha, well we will perhaps have to "agree to disagree" on that. Maybe I could have been clearer though; it wasn't a complaint, as much as it was an observation. Personally I don't mind the lack of autopilot at all - as you say it is historically accurate. I know some will mind it though (not everyone enjoys hand flying over long periods), so I point it out for the sake of the review.
I would never want to see an autopilot option that permanently corrupts the historical accuracy / integrity of the addon, but it always nice to have options (in my opinion); whether that's an optional autopilot unit, or (the better option I think) some sort of functionality via the onboard clipboard.
Horses for courses on that one of course though.
Thanks again and all the best! : )
Even though I’m not interested in this bird, I watch anyways! Always enjoy your reviews
Haha, thank you sir! That's always very rewarding to hear and very much appreciated!
I hope you enjoyed it and all the best : )
Great Review as always! Fun to watch and get a basic how-to for starting and essential systems for when I jump in to have a go at flying the airplane.
I am leaning towards waiting until the first update that addresses the gauges and other things. I think for systems and realism the PMDG DC-6 is a must-have but the overall 247 product does look like it will give a good run for another favorite in my virtual hangar. I always gravitate to vintage round-engine airplanes when the developer makes a compelling product. Now we just need A2A Simulations to make the leap to MSFS. I do still consider the aircraft they produce to be among the very best for an immersive experience.
Thanks very much Andy! Glad you enjoyed the video and found it useful.
Yes, waiting probably isn't a bad idea. I'm fairly sure Wing42 will iron out most of the kinks and the B247 will then be one of the very best addons available for MSFS (if it isn't already).
A2A do seem to have gone a bit quiet of late, but I'm really hoping we'll still see their back-catalogue in the sim at some point. One of my favorite devs without a doubt and the A2A Spit is probably my favorite addon of all time. In terms of making an aircraft feel alive, nobody does it better than A2A!
Cheers and all the best : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations I broke down and bought the 247 and, in my opinion, it is an amazing piece of work with massive potential. On many flights though, I cannot get through without a deadstick landing due to engine fire or failure. I have flown the airplane as close as I can to the provided specs and worked to keep T&Ps as stated by the docs and, boy, it will not give me a fighting chance lol. But the airplane is addictively challenging and I am hoping there will be an update soon. Thanks for all your hard work with these reviews, I appreciate it and am now an official subscriber! As a lifelong fan of the British side Battle of Britain airplanes, the Spitfire Mk1 nd Hurricane Mk1 are my very favorite variants of these airplanes and, I agree A2A made a masterpiece with their version. I too would be on needles and pins for an MSFS update and release. All the best, Andy
Haha, I think we've all been in that position more than once Andy - I'm very poor at preventing myself from buying an addon once it has piqued my interest XD
I agree completely that the B247 has massive potential. It's already very very good, just a few things that need brushing up (engine failure modelling certainly being one of them haha).
My pleasure on all of the videos. I'm really glad you're enjoying them to such a degree, that you felt you wanted to become a channel member! Thank you ever so much, it is hugely appreciated!
Please feel free to email me at intotheblueinbox@gmail.com for some more details regarding membership "benefits" etc.
Ah, well you are a man of taste sir! The Hurricane and the Spitfire a both beautiful aircraft and the MKI's are of course the best ; )
Thanks once again! Look forward to hearing from you : )
Hi Austin,
Thanks for the detailed reply. I had not thought about density altitude as a factor in the behavior of the sim for engines but thinking about it, it makes a lot of sense. Thanks for doing the math for us laymen...
Regarding Jack, that is a hilarious analysis. He seems to know where some bodies are buried to keep his job lol... I will try doing a hard crash for the 247 (which goes against all my flying instincts) but if this is the only way to reboot the damage, so be it lol... A damage and maintenance status screen would be awesome if it is provided in a future update.
The 247 could set a new sim bar in the A2A realm on an esoteric and fun airplane but, yes, it needs a lot more how-to info provided by the developer.
On a fun side-note, I have been obsessed with vintage piston aircraft my whole life and I remember watching a Nova program in the 1980s called, DC3 "the Plane that Changed the World" and drawing DC3's in my school notes for years after. The 247 was featured in the show and the distinctive wing main spar running through the center of the fuselage being a drawback to passenger comfort. What fun to go through my virtual 247 and see the main spar sitting there plain as day.
Have a great day and thanks again,
Andy
You can fine tune the gyro by hold and drag the knob for precise setting. I noted in your install the right engine flywheel sound is also missing, seems like a little bug. Good video, as always
Ah ok, thanks very much for the info Rico, that one is good to know!
Huh, I assumed the right flywheel sounds were an issue for everyone? I didn't even notice it at first, as I assumed the sound was being masked by the other engine running, but then someone else pointed the issue out as well. I might have to try a reinstall then; otherwise hopefully Wing42 will get the issue fixed up in due course.
Glad you enjoyed the vid! Thanks very much for watching and all the best : )
The engines are actually easy to maintain once you get the hang of it. I've been recreating the MacRobertson Air Race with it. Started in London, now in Greece. Not one single engine failure. The taxiing is still annoying though
Hi João,
I’m sure a bit of practice helps haha. I also think that the B247’s engines don’t like to get cold, which they were, running up at high altitude when I was trying to record with the aircraft. I actually gave a thought to the 247 recently and figured that it would be fun to record another flight with the aircraft. It is a shame that the aircraft never saw any further improvements from the dev, but from what you say, it sounds like it’s still working ok : )
Good luck with the rest of your route. Cheers!
@@IntotheBlueSimulations update. Had an engine failure reaching Baghdad. Chose the wrong oil
Ahh, that’s unfortunate haha! I hope the maintenance facilities in Baghdad are half-decent then : P
I really wish that with some of these older aircraft, the designers would offer two panel options. The original classic and a panel with updated radios and avionics. Maybe a GPS on the yoke. I’m sure lots of people like the original panel but an updated panel makes the aircraft more fly able. I find myself interested in aircraft like this but I skip purchasing them because I find that I fly them once and never really fly them again. A great example of this is the Carenado Beech Staggerwing. It is an amazing aircraft and beautiful as well, but the lack of solid navigational equipment and radios makes it not enjoyable to fly. A few years ago I went up in a real staggerwing and with the GPS and modern Nav equipment, it made that old aircraft a practical everyday flyer. Just my opinion anyways. Good review none the less. 😊
Thanks very much Super, glad you enjoyed the review!
Completely agree: I would never want Modern avionics *instead* of a period setup, but it’s always nice to have the option, especially when it comes to GPS. I know a lot of people want to enjoy flying the aircraft, as opposed to worrying about navigation etc and adding an optional GPS in the cockpit is so simple to do (and not necessarily unrealistic, as you mention in your Staggerwing example). Who knows, maybe Wing 42 may add one in at a later date. . .
At least you know you realistically won’t spend that much time in the aircraft and therefore haven’t spent money on something you’ll get little utility from ; )
Cheers and all the best!
PS, I’ll bet the trip in the Staggerwing must have been great : )
not as immersive, but if you get the PMS50 GTN 750 mod you can run it in a sim window to get GPS functionality in any airplane. the basic version is freeware, it works pretty well in my experience.
You may not realize it, but even if the plane's flight deck doesn't include modern avionics, they're still available through MSFS. I load in an IFR flight plan with all waypoints and it's all mapped out for me in the map. Just switch to external camera with instruments in the HUD and you'll have a fully working HSI. Hit the "V" key and the GPS map will appear. I've been flying the 247D every day on long trips. Obviously there's no autopilot, but you can hand fly along each leg.
@@einfussganger that’s not the point. The immersion is gone then.
This was long enough ago they still called them ships!
Partner this aircraft with The Skypark add-on and it will be the ultimate immersion.
That does indeed sounds like a tonne of fun azgoodaz! : )
Fantastic video again, ITBS. I must admit I used to skip over your videos due to the length when I was just getting into the game, but now that I am obsessed, I am going back and watching them all! I am a filthy casual, or at least was. I have fallen so in love with the game that it takes all of my time learning more and trying to be better. I have one question for you: have you flown the Embraer 110? It is my favorite plane at the moment for longer IFR trips, and I probably have 60-80 hours in it. I understand that it doesn’t have the realism of, say, my Spitfire, but it is very quirky and I truly enjoy flying it more. If you’ve flown it, am I off-base?? Is this just a symptom of being a newby?
Thanks very much Garrett, really glad you enjoyed it!
Haha, well this makes me really happy to hear! It's awesome that you started out having some casual fun and are enjoying the hobby enough now, that you want to dive a little deeper - there's not turning back now! ; )
I haven't flown the EMB 110. I did think about picking it up some time ago, but that didn't happen in the end for a couple of reasons. It looks good fun though and short IFR hops tend to be pretty entertaining. I have no real idea as to the accuracy of the aircraft, but if you're enjoying it, that's the main thing!
Best of luck with the continued learning process. If you ever have any questions, feel free to get in touch!
All the best : )
I'm glad you were again honest and name the weird things about this plane. I'm not expert on radial engines at all, but to me it seems that "realism" effect is quite overdone. Not sure, if pilots back then had to babysit the plane 99% of the time instead of focusing on flying. Quite funny reading on the forums how this plane is great, even when half of their flights ended in failure :-D DC-6 had this aspect perfectly balanced. Of course I could be wrong and engines on 247 were that crappy indeed. Still might drop the cash to devs to support pricing decision. Finally some of them are getting that MSFS has large userbase and price could be lower for the same profit.
Hi Tomas,
I always try to be honest. It's not for the sake of deriding the developer / product either (I have a lot of respect for Wing42 overall), its to let you guys know what you'd be buying.
Personally I do think the damage modelling is overdone, or at the very least it's tricky to manage the engines in any meaningful sort of way, without proper documentation, gauges etc. I expect the B247 was more prone to failures etc than the DC-6 (judging by the accident reports), but even when I fly the aircraft very conservatively, it fails more often than not.
Still, an impressive effort from a small dev. Really pushing the boundaries of what we've seen in the sim; both their work and their pricing should give some of the other devs food for thought. I'm sure they'll get things fixed up in due course.
All the best! : )
Thsnks for the review, I love vintage planes and this is a nice one. How did you get the radio communication in Spanish?
My pleasure Eduardo! Yes, the B247 is a very nice offering overall.
The Spanish ATC is from LiveATC.net - I then edited the recordings into the video. There is an ATC chatter app available for MSFS, but I'm afraid I'm not sure whether it includes international languages.
I hope that helps a little. All the best! : )
"Flaps we don't have" 😉 great stable approach and landing - nice - visions of you with a cuban cigar and passengers reading some nice old paper to get the latest news. A real era of flying this would have been. 🚬
Haha, ooops, did I make a mistake?! I was pretty sure the aircraft doesn't have flaps though. . .
Thanks very much, I'm glad you enjoyed the video once again! Haha, well if you have those sorts of images in mind, then I have done my job well : P
Cheers and all the best!
@@IntotheBlueSimulations No mistake. It was just rather funny, going through checklist to the part with flaps and then stating we don’t have any to use. 😂
Many thanks for this excellent review. Again your attention to detail is welcomed. This aircraft requires a great deal of study and thought to successfully fly, which is why this product definitely offers a lot of appeal and rewards with an immersive experience. Yes trying to keep those cranky engines turning !. May I ask a question ?, how does one navigate in this aircraft, is it completely visual ?, are there any instruments within the cockpit that can assist navigation to your destination, understanding of course the age of this aircraft. As always many thanks for all the good work you do on this channel.
Hello IT Mann,
Thanks very much, my pleasure as always!
The 247 definitely offers a nice challenge and can be very rewarding, I do feel that the documentation needs updating to reflect that though. Currently it feels as though it's difficult to manage those engines in any meaningful way, as the broken gauges and slim amount of information on their operation, means users are left somewhat in the dark.
This being said, the 247 is only a few fixes away from greatness! Wing42 have done a wonderful job with the aircraft and I have no doubt they will fix what needs to be fixed.
To answer your question; the aircraft does actually come with a wonderfully modelled period navigation radio. The user is provided with a list of historical radio beacons and these can be tuned up in-sim; one then navigates by homing in on the signal. The whole system is done very nicely - Wing42 have even gone to the effort of modelling some commercial radio stations that one can tune up, complete with period appropriate music! I would love to have demonstrated this in the video, but time didn't allow and there weren't any radio beacons available enroute at any rate. That's your lot though; there's no ADF, VOR, GPS etc. So again, a really nice challenge, but for sure not an aircraft one can just hop in and fly with ease!
Thanks as always! All the best : )
Is your real life increase in activity include motor real world flying.? great presentation and seems like very valid comments resulting from the flight/s failures seem fragile and engine temps for systems seems to be non real world and hopefully developer will be in work on remedies. Thanks again great job. Cheers and best regards Charlie
Haha, I wish Charlie! It's time-consumption of the dirty nappies and sleepless nights variety. . . My wife and I just had a baby; so very exciting, but an awful lot of work as you can probably imagine. Nonetheless, I shall try and juggle things around to keep everything ticking along!
Yes, the B247 is and excellent piece of work from Wing42, but there are a few creases that need ironing out (and indeed I believe they are doing that as we speak). Well worth the money either way, but definitely worth keeping an eye on once it has been fixed up.
My pleasure as always! Thanks for watching : )
Just flying down to Rick's Café to meet a beautiful Ilsa Lund.
not having a auto pilot gets around the crappy autopilot on MSFS. maybe it is just crap on my xbox. i like this plane. Thank you for this quick review.
Not having an autopilot is probably also accurate for the era, at least when the 247 was introduced. In reality, though, there actually was an autopilot - it was the fellow sitting in the right hand seat!
@@anthonyvallillo422 actually, this is a fascinating bit of a topic. The first autopilot for an airplane was actually developed in 1912 by the Sperry Corporation. It was a gyroscope that basically helped hold a plane in straight and level flight on whatever heading you left it on. The Sperry gyroscope "pilot assister" wasn't initially hooked up to the ailerons, because it couldn't correct for adverse yaw and ailerons back then normally were equalized where one side went up and the other went down just as much. Instead it was attached to the rudder and used that to manage any turning tendencies. But it didn't fly a compass course, it just held an aircraft level.
In 1933 - the same year that the 247 came out - Wiley Post jerry-rigged his own autopilot for his solo round-the-world flight in the Lockheed Vega Winnie Mae. He hooked a Sperry gyroscopic autopilot up to a radio direction finder so that the Sperry would hold the plane on course, and the RDF would correct the course to keep it on the right compass heading. This apparently only worked about half the time, but it was enough to make it possible for Post to complete the solo circumnavigation in 7 days, 18 hours, and 49 minutes, without need of a navigator. This was revolutionary and experimental, but it definitely caught on so that by the 1940s it wasn't uncommon for aircraft to have Sperry gyroscopic autopilots that were far more effective.
Still, the 247 came out that same year, so any 247s that eventually got an autopilot got them after market. For example, when Rosco Turner and Clyde Pangborn flew a 247D in the MacRobertson Air Race in 1934 they flew it all by hand, using radio-range and celestial navigation.
Haha, well that's true Donald. Not having an autopilot is period accurate of course, but I think that an option via the clipboard would have been a good addition.
and it's not just on the Xbox, the default MSFS autopilot is unfortunately pretty sub-par across the board and has been for some time now : /
The 247 overall is an excellent offering. Glad you're enjoying it!
All the best : )
Haha, exactly Anthony. The aircraft is period accurate, but I think it would have been nice to have an option via the clipboard, as I know not everyone wants to hand fly for hours on end.
As you say, the other chap was there to help out with the boring parts ; )
Cheers! : )
Great video. learnt a lot having brought this plane and not been very good with.
One question does it have a radio for ATC?
Thanks very much Jason! I'm glad you picked up a few things from it : )
The B247 does have a radio (over on the righthand side of the main instrument panel, if memory serves me correctly), but it is pretty basic and wont work with all modern frequencies. The frequency selector is the round gauge with the numbers running through it (probably not very helpful I know, but tricky to describe haha).
Cheers and all the best!
You are right the Sounds need some work. I think the Engine Interior Sound is too "muffled". Thank you for mentioning it! Nobody did in the Forums. I thought i was the only one.
Personal preference but I like the engine volume. You can crack the windows for louder engine sounds :)
After the Twin Otter being so loud it forces me to use headphone simulation I appreciate a plane where sound is less loud while inside.
@@Vograx The Twin Otter sound is awful. An expensive mistake as I don't like that kind of wing type.
If you have Headphone Simulation on, turn it off for the 247D. The dev acknowledged that's a little broken at the moment.
Haha, well maybe it's just the two of us then Micha; but yeah, I feel the sounds could use some work. Another commenter that has some real-world experience with the B247, mentioned that the external engine sound are actually pretty good, so I guess it's just the flanging that needs fixing up there. I agree that the internals sound rather muffled. Maybe it's partly a question of sound setup - I have a pretty cheap pair of headphones.
Cheers and all the best! : )
Haha, sounds always seem to divide everybody. I do agree though, that not being deafened by an addon is indeed a bonus! XD
Thank you for that great review. I have continually forgotten to ask you what addon you're using for the ATC in your reviews! It sounds very realistic so, would you please tell me what is the ATC addon that you have installed?
Thanks again,
Rich
Hello Rich,
Thanks very much, I’m glad you enjoyed it!
The ATC is real-world recordings, which I’ve then edited into the video. There is an ATC chatter app available for MSFS though, if that’s the sort of thing you’re after : )
I hope that helps. All the best!
@@IntotheBlueSimulations Thank you! I used to know of some ATC addons for FSX that sounded better, (if not MUCH better), than the default version. So, I thought that maybe you had one of those installed for MSFS.
That said, I don't want random ATC chatter unless it's pertinent to the flight I'm involved with and the surrounding air traffic activity. A2A had something like that for FSX, (I think). I'll have to look into it because until now, I really haven't made any focused searches for such an addon.
Thanks again,
Rich
You’re most welcome, Rich!
Proper ATC is still very limited for MSFS currently (which is a real shame because, even FSX’s default ATC, was far better than what we have now). With Beyond ATC and VOX ATC somewhere on the horizon, things should start to pick up in that department though : )
Cheers!
yes, you used the term "flanging" correctly to describe the engine sounds on the outboard cameras.
Thanks very much for the info Brandon; that’s a relief, as I think I mentioned it more than once during the review haha.
Much appreciated and all the best to you! : )
I might have missed it in the video but did you notice that the engines run "rough" when the mixture is wrong ;-: No EGT to use here !
Hi Lee,
I was aware of it, but I don’t think I made any mention of it during the video (I should have). It’s certainly a very nice touch! There was a tonne of other features that I would have loved to have covered, if it had been a full review; but alas I just don’t have the time at the moment, to create a video in quite as much detail as I would otherwise like to do.
Cheers and all the best! : )
Great review.
No doubt the best pre war vintage aircraft for M$F$. Was not impressed with JU52, (no buy).
There are too many publishers to go for best profit/minimum work ratio in the sim market - cheap eye candy with no depth
Wing42 try to accomplish a lot of extra (that they may not do for sale), and ends up with a few weak points in the extra stuff.
According to this review - this is a nice medium size aircraft, with system details I am looking for.
A couple of updates, and it will be on par with PMDG DC6.
Instant buy - not only for a nice aircraft, but also for support and future updates.
Update.
After purchase - A great aircraft with a ton of hidden details. Problem with start, but solved by removing all keyboard binds for fuel, mixture - power plant.
Its enemy is the price tag at 20 . I always neglect aircraft addons that cost less than $40 - they are usually under my standard. I glad this catch my attention. Could easily gone under my radar. Main complaint now is sound inside cockpit. "Steal" the sound from A2A Texan radial and double the noise...
Hi øystein,
Yep, all very fair / valid points. The aircraft isn't without its issues, but it's very impressive what Wing42 has managed to achieve overall! Without doubt one of the best value for money offerings in any sim and a few fixes shy of being a masterpiece.
Equally as important; Wing42 seems to be receptive to feedback and I gather they are working on fixes as we speak.
There are very few addons that I would recommend purchasing just for the sake of supporting the developers, but this is certainly one of them. Not only is it amazing to see this level of detail in MSFS, but as you say, Wing42 have clearly put in a tonne of care and attention that they could quite happily have bypassed altogether and still had a quality product. That sort of passion is to be commended and my hat goes off to them on their pricing decision. The community needs to reward them for their low pricing; if it works in this particular case, other developers may start to take note. I wish Wing42 every success!
I'm glad you're enjoying the 247! Happy flying and all the best : )
Congratulations, oh my goodness I remember doing my. It before joint GUINESS PEAT AVIATION when my wife had to manage with out me .
Thank you very much Charlie, very much appreciated! : )
Haha, well I've been taking a little bit of time off, so I've been around for all of it thus far. Not sure if that's a blessing or not - suddenly a night turnaround isn't sounding so bad anymore! XD
Cheers!
Update - my new comment after some flights.
Detail level is just yaw dropping. Higher than PMDG DC6. Probably the best aircraft addon so far.
Strange they missed engine sound. There is no increased roar when adding power, and governor lag is not simulated.
But - highly -highly recommended must buy.
I would agree øystein, that sounds are definitely an area that need some work. I'm quite surprised also that Wing42 didn't realise that ahead of release, but I gather they are looking to improve the sounds and I'm sure they will pull it off.
Happy flying! : )
I love flying Peru 😃👍👍
Me too Derek! Peru is such a beautiful, varied and interesting country. It also provides a really nice challenge in the sim.
Happy flying! : )
19:44 - That is denoted in the manual. Page 19. (;
Ah damn. . . haha!
You're correct Slawek, although it is a little buried away. I didn't see any mention of it on the panel layout diagram, which is what I was referring to at the time.
Thanks for the info! All the best : )
This is quite an amazing yet frustrating plane. I've had the engines die on me pretty much every flight. Managed an hour one time before they died, thought I got lucky and restarted one of them but it then burst into flames a minute later lol. But as you say it's a real diamond in the rough and hopefully the plane and/or documentation will be improved.
The manual is quite nice with a lot of info but also lacking in some aspects as you say, although there is a description of what each of positions on the temp gauge dial does on page 22 so you need to study harder ;) It's a bit odd there's no checklist. The dev said they didn't have checklists back then but I'm sure the operators would've come up with their own or at least you'd have some experienced guy telling you what to do in check flight so leaving one out for 'realism' is a bit of a stretch really. A complex plane like this needs explaining.
So many great details in this plane as well like having individual fuses modelled that you can replace if they pop, the radio navigation range system, the way the dials and levers all shake slightly and more. A real labour of love. I just need to practice a lot more to actually keep the engines running lol. I think my problems were with the engines getting too cold like you mentioned at one point. When I get virtually airborne again I'm quite looking forward to taking this out some more and trying and failing to get things right.
Great review flight or whatever you want to call it, covered the good and the bad and as you say it's really worth it even with the gremlins that need working out. Plus the price is amazingly fair and I hope other devs take notice. Cheers!
Actually speaking of failures reminded me that I saw the Red Wing Connie now has some quite detailed failures modelled now, looks quite impressive. Tempted to actually buy it now. Maybe it could be worth revisiting in a future video? Seems to have come along quite a bit since your last vid.
Haha, your first sentence gave me a good chuckle - the quintessential B247 experience! XD
It is an amazing offering and Wing42 deserves the money for what they have tried to achieve and the fact that they have priced the aircraft beyond fairly. I still maintain that it is indeed a bit too fragile in its current state though and dodgy gauges (whether I understand what they do or not : P) means one can't really manage the systems in a meaningful way. I do understand the point about checklists - but I doubt too many of us have a B247 type rating up our sleeves and these guys would still have been trained before being let loose ha!
One guy did point out that the aircraft isn't really designed for high altitude operations, ie above 10,000ft (even though its service ceiling is much higher). The Wing42 version certainly doesn't seem to like the cold air as far as I can tell.
I have another fun little outing planned for the aircraft, but I've no idea when I'll find the time to get it recorded. Perhaps it's worth waiting until Wing42 have given me a new set of engines at any rate haha.
Glad you enjoyed the video! Cheers : )
Yes, I've had a few people now requesting such a vid. I would certainly be keen to take another look - it will just be a question of finding the time. . .
Cheers!
Nice music...
Thanks Filipe, glad you enjoyed it! : )
This aircraft seems fantastically modeled and detailed, but for me personally, I just don't think I'd fly it much. I have already purchased the Ju-52 which is quite similar and has basically the exact same roll, it's rather slow to be used as a long distance airliner, and the Aeroplane Heaven DC-3 is going to be released very soon, which will likely completely replace this plane for flying...
Understandable James.
I'm sure the DC-3 will very quickly replace the B247 for many, although I suspect the difference in quality / fidelity may remain fairly sizeable. The 247 is of course pretty niche and as you say, not ideally suited for getting from A to B in a hurry.
Certainly no point spending the money, if you can't see yourself flying the aircraft - better saved for a rainy day ; )
All the best!
On ny 8th flight i finally managed to handle this bird without ruening my engines. And yes what type of oil you use for outside temps got allot to do with it. However temps change in different altitudes so i had to manually change the temps in the game mid air to get safely to my destination 😂 i also read in the manual that the sound got limits by the sim itself if i understood it correctly. Anyway you pointed out all aspects of the positives and negatives very well as usual 🙏😊 and i really hope they will fix what is needed. Great plane overall and i love flying it when i manage to handle the oil temps ❤👍😁
Haha, that sounds all too familiar! The B247 definitely isn't an aircraft to take, if you actually want to arrive at your destination XD
I'm glad you thought the review hit the mark reasonably well. It perhaps came over as slightly more critical than I meant it to, but the 247 is not without faults. I'm fairly sure Wing42 will do the right thing though and get the aircraft fixed up - clearly they have already put a lot of love and care into the product!
Happy flying! ; )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations like i've said before we all love that you pin point every detail either good or bad cause it is important to us to know what we are buying. Espesially considering the cost of every plane, addons and airports :) You are doing a fine job good sir!
Maybe a stupid question, but does this aircraft have a radio for use on VATSIM? I expect historically it was equipped with only a Morse Code transmitter/receiver?
So actually, by 1933, when this plane came out, they were transitioning. In fact, originally Boeing designed the plane for a crystal radio for morse code transmission, but right before they rolled off the line new radios became available and Boeing decided to install those instead, but there were still switches for the old radios on the panel and Boeing just left them in even though they didn't do anything. This is actually modeled in the plane.
The plane has two radios: one is the Bendix for navigation, and another is for coms. It is on the far right side of the cockpit. It is a round disc that you rotate to set the second and third digit of the radio frequency, (the 1 is always the same) and a lever that you twist side to side to set the decimal. In keeping with the radios of the time, it is only set to receive in increments of 0.1, meaning modern frequencies in 0.05 increments won't work.
They did put in a virtual transponder in the clipboard, specifically for use with Vatsim, but you won't be able to tune to a lot of radio stations, and the MSFS ATC radio won't auto tune for you like it does in other airplanes. So all in all, I think the results will be mixed. If you are trying to fly it with the radio navigation, you might also not want to use VATSIM anyway, because a lot of the old airways may be incompatible with modern airspace restrictions.
Hi JellyEel,
I can't really add much to Autin's excellent answer but yeah, one would really struggle to use this aircraft in the VATSIM environment; not least of all because there will be plenty on frequencies that you simply wont be able to tune.
I hope that helps. All the best! : )
Great video as always!
Beautiful model with comprehensive systems but... I'm still wondering what happened to the sounds... so disappointing...
Its awful. If they were better I would buy it... but it doesn't sound like twin wasp engines in any sense.
@@CCitis The R1340 wasn't a Twin Wasp, it was a single row radial.
@@johnclarke2553 I understand that, but there are two of them on the airplane.... and the sounds are extremely lackluster.
@@CCitis Totally agree! The aeroplane would be well-nigh perfect with a better sound set.
Thanks Stéph, glad you enjoyed it!
Interestingly, someone with real-world experience of the 247 commented that the sounds aren't that far off the mark, so perhaps the engines simply don't sound as nice as we might expect. There are still sound issues though, the flanging needs fixing up for example.
The B247 is a very nice effort from Wing42, with just a few areas that need fixing - it sounds like they are working on that as we speak though : )
Cheers and all the best!
it’s just an incredible aircraft but it DESPERATELY needs checklists and maybe even engine management guides to allow us to use it properly.
It is in the manual, best to read it a few times😊
@@Adventure494 i’ve read it repeatedly.
Agreed goal ski. Another commenter did make the point that aircraft of this period didn't really have checklists per se (or if they did, they were generally custom made by the airline), but I think Wing42 really needs to create a custom set, otherwise we're rather left in the dark - it sounds like they are doing just that though, which is great.
The manual has some really good info in it, but it's lacking in some areas and isn't really fleshed out enough (in my opinion) to allow one to fly such a complex simulation accurately.
Wing42 have done an amazing job though and seem to have been very receptive to the user feedback, so I am sure things well come good : )
Cheers!
@@IntotheBlueSimulations you’re absolutely right about the checklists. i think the difference is that those pilots received training but we’re figuring it out as we go!
Haha, exactly! It’s a little bit “unusual” to be flying an aircraft by trial and error XD
Saw this had been launched and was already um-img and ah-ing about it, mostly because I’m kind of hooked on Concorde currently and don’t really think I’ll fly much else until the 146 is released. Then the 737 thereafter. That said, generally interested in good aircraft and I buy them to then use later, the Chancellor being a good example.
Like the systems modelling in the 247D but the fact that the engine sounds aren’t too good is enough to put me off. I like turning my speakers up and listening to what I’m flying 😀
Well no harm in waiting I suppose mark. I'm sure the 247 will still be there in months to come and maybe by then it will have some improved sounds haha.
That being said, it is a nice cheap one to pick up and I think that Wing42 deserve our support for their efforts and conduct.
Decisions decisions. . . ; )
Hope the Concorde flying is going well! I so rarely get a chance to fly anything once I've reviewed it these days haha, but I'd be keen to see what the updates have done for the AFS.
All the best! : )
My oil temp drops to 40 everytime at cruise fl090 and oil pressure over 120psi. Ive tried every possibble combination with oil shutters of and lean mixture and different oil grades etc.. Any tips?
Hi GD,
Yeah, best I can tell, the B247 really doesn't like being up at "high" altitudes. Anywhere above a few thousand feet, the aircraft really seems to struggle with overcooling currently. I don't really have many great tips I'm afraid; other than avoid high altitude cruising, cold conditions and high cruise speeds.
As I mentioned during the flight, my guess would be that the B247 still needs some tweaking overall. . .
Best of luck! ; )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations ty for the tip, thought something was wrong with my installation or smth.
You’re most welcome! Haha, no no, that’s all pretty “normal” for the 247 at the moment XD
All the best : )
Amazing flight and amazing plane. But i have weird issue with this plane and i cannot find answer anywhere on the internet. I cannot get manifold preassure higher then maybe to half gauge (when white field starts) and cannot get more RPM then 2000. Is this a bug? I tried everything
Hi David,
Thanks very much, I'm glad you enjoyed the flight!
Hmm, that is a strange one and not one I have experienced myself. Is it a hardware issue perhaps? Are you able to get full power with all other addons in the sim? The only other couple of things I can think of: 1) Is the aircraft fully serviceable - ie you aren't damaging the engines on the ground before you depart. 2) What sort of altitude are you generally flying from?
Sorry, I can't really think what else might be causing your issues there. Have you had any luck figuring things out in the mean time?
Cheers and all the best! : )
With all due respect and don't be offended ..but I think you are expecting a lot from a developer on his own virtually, and for only £14 ...Big companies don't produce this quality but charge at least twice as much...This product even has a radio that produces 20's music while flying if you wish ...Quite outstanding, I think!
Hi Al,
No offense taken for sure - any constructive criticism is welcome!
I can totally understand where you're coming from and I think the review came off a touch harsher than I meant it to (as I think the product is an excellent offering overall). I also forgot one of my own tenets - I usually try and review a product based on its price point (I think I forgot this one, only because the product is so excellent overall).
All of the above being said, I don't think my critique was unfair per se, as all that I pointed out was true. The gauges do need fixing, otherwise the excellent engine modelling is somewhat wasted. Checklists would certainly be nice, so that users don't feel "left in the dark". I was perhaps erroneous to some degree regarding the sounds, as apparently they aren't too far off the mark as compared with the real aircraft, but the flanging does need fixing.
Most of the areas I critiqued are now being addressed by Wing42, so I think that's confirmation that my comments were not unfounded derision.
All in all though, don't get me wrong; my comments are never made for the enjoyment of criticising someone's work, purely for the information of any prospective customer - so that they know what they will be buying. The Wing42 B247 is an absolutely excellent effort, sold at an incredible price + as you say, it puts a lot of the bigger devs to shame.
I have no doubt that Wing42 will address the areas that need fixing up and I wish them every success in their endeavors!
I hope that clarifies my position a little.
Cheers and all the best! : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations Thank you I was not really wanting to offend you. All your points are fair....I just wanted to point out price and size of developer compared to large companies.. I think you do a fair comparison in your videos ...well done.
As I say Al, no offence taken! I always welcome constructive criticism - it’s important that you guys keep me honest ; )
I’m glad you think for the most part I hit the mark, I certainly try to do so.
Thanks and all the best! : )
An amazing plane, but controlling engine temps and oil pressure is almost impossible. On every flight I either run high oil pressure (outside the range of the gauge) or below 30 psi with no way of increasing it. But if they manage to fix that and can make the sounds a bit nice this is the best aircraft in MSFS2020 at the moment.
Hi Victor,
Yep, that basically sums up the 247 experience at the moment I'm afraid haha; it's an amazing piece of work, but nigh on impossible to complete a flight in XD
As you say, a few fixes / improvements and it will be golden though.
All the best! : )
Depending on how this review goes i will have to spend some coins when you give your thumbs up... let's see! 😊
Haha, what was your final verdict then sir? ; )
The aircraft definitely has it's issues currently, but I can certainly see why everyone loves it overall. For the price, bugs aside, it's a spectacular offering.
All the best! : )
I wonder why A2A have avoided MSFS? Probably because the SDK is lacking? Who knows? Until they get going this beauty will fill the gap!
They are focused on military contracts, and have had personal issues to set them back.
@@CCitis OK Thanks. I thought it was the aweful SDK?
@@Flight231 Considering PMDG is launching the 737, and Milviz a complex 310 with failures, maintenance etc... I fail to see how the SDK is holding back A2A.
I think that was very much why A2A were avoiding MSFS originally David, as I gather the SDK didn't allow them to implement accusim properly (obviously a huge part of any A2A product). I think A2A themselves have stated that is no longer the case now though.
They were originally planning on introducing the Aerostar first to MSFS, but unfortunately they had a real-world emergency / wheels-up landing in the Aerostar that they owned - that wrote off the aircraft and obviously set them back massively. I gather the Comanche will now be their first MSFS product; things do seem to have gone a bit quiet there, but that's not wholly unusual for A2A.
I certainly hope they are coming to MSFS. They are quite possibly my favorite developer of all time!
All the best : )
Slightly unrelated, but what was the music at the start before the intro called?
Hi Yomumbigboi,
The song is called "Adios Dime" by the Lecuona Cuban Boys.
All the best! : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations Thanks! Very much appreciated!
The audio of this plane sounds really distorted, especially with the windows open. It causes crackling in my headphones. No other planes do this in msfs. Does it happen to you?
Hi Zach,
Yes it does, absolutely (I did make mention of the audio issues, towards the end of the review). Unfortunately, there seems to be quite a lot of audio issues with the B247; I had hoped that Wing42 would be pretty prompt with a patch, but so far nothing. . . The addon has the potential for greatness, but for me, a couple of "game-breaking" bugs hold it back at the moment.
I hope that clarifies things a little (even if we're all stuck with the same problem haha). Cheers and all the best! : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations haha totally agree. Thanks for the response.
You’re most welcome! : )
Yeah the sounds are a bit of a letdown for what is otherwise a really excellent product. A little question, shouldn’t the cylinders in the engine rotate or am I missing something? 🤔
Some early aero engines were 'rotary' engines where the whole engine, including cylinders, rotated around a fixed crankshaft. Radial engines, such as those seen here, are merely normal engines with the cylinders arranged in a circle rather than 'in line' (like a car engine) This aided with cooling. The practice of using rotary engines died out quite early in the 20th century as engines became too unwieldy to operate.
@@Russell_G Thank you Russell! Appreciated :)
Yeah, the sounds don't really do the rest of the product justice; it sounds like Wing42 are continuing to work on them though, so that's great to hear. I'm fairly sure they'll get them right in the end.
I think Russell has covered the rotary vs radial engine topic very nicely, so I shan't add anything there ; )
A beautiful aircraft from Wing42, just needs a few finishing touches and it'll be golden!
All the best : )
Thanks for offering up the help Russell! Much appreciated : )
Too bad the cht isn't still fixed, whatever I do, with 60F outside, engines pushed at max, the temp doesn't go over 160F... When flying economic it goes down to 100F and the issues begin. The only solution I've found to keep these over 200F is using time compression x2 to raise the temps when too low... Also the aircraft is sometimes jumping or stuttering even mid-ait, it looks also like a bug. The Com radio is useless, better remove it. It's not the level of a2a so far. I would love to see again b377, (most everything piston airliner ever made) adapted to it, it seems the Comanche 250 is on its way.
Hi Eric,
Yes, it's a real shame that the B247 has some "game-breaking" bugs, all the more so that the dev has done nothing to fix them (given the general quality of the product, I really thought he would do so).
I too would love to see the A2A B377 in MSFS, any of the A2A lineup really! The Commanche wouldn't have been my first choice, but I'm sure we'll see other offerings in time and nobody does this sort of thing better than A2A!
Cheers, all the best : )
I also think the manual is wrong about the carb temps. That's the carb inlet temp; there is absolutely no way you want that over 100F; every other plane thrives on cold, dense air, I refuse to believe this is any different. Carb heat is there for de-icing.
You're right, it's the inlet temperature, but the carb heat here is actually designed to be used continuously to prevent icing, rather than to de-ice the carburetor once it is frozen up.
From the 1933 Boeing Model 247 Maintenance & Service Manual: "(c) Carburetor Icing and Distribution: Once ice forms, the addition of heat very often fails to clear the carburetors in time to prevent a forced landing. It is considered better practice to avoid the formation of ice by applying heat to the entering air in such quantities as to keep the temperature of the mixture above the freezing point of the moisture contained in it. From what is known at the present time about this problem it appears that a temperature of 100 F should care for this condition without causing a serious loss in power. A thermocouple is installed in the air duct below each carburetor and indicates the temperature of the entering air."
@@ouyangwulong yes, I've read that snippet since I posted that. As I understand it that's what they do in C172s and similar for landings, it's just weird to see it recommended as a constant thing.
I've flown it a bunch in icing conditions recently, and if I had any carb icing I was able to clear it upon detecting it, I wonder if that's just early aviation caution.
@@joemarkowski4465 This is another one of those things where I'm not sure if the original engines had problems that are more complex than what they were able to model, or if they modeled it right and the original concerns were perhaps over-cautious. There were a TON of deaths due to engine failures in these airplanes and if you read through the accident reports a lot of them sound very familiar to what we're all dealing with in the sim "Engine failure after takeoff" "Engine failure after 3 hours of flight" etc. There were three major losses in 1933 alone, though one of those was a terrorist bombing. So I can imagine the engineers were feeling a bit defensive.
Well I guess you and I don't know better than Boeing after all then Joe XD
but I'm as surprised as you are about that. Really interesting to know though. Thanks once again Austin! : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations I talked to some of the "experts" about that sort of thing on the DC-6 forums, as the two planes aren't that far apart in time or technology. Best guess is that the shape of the carburetor doesn't lend itself to de icing with heat the way later ones do. Certainly food for thought, to be sure.
However, now when you're trying to sort out why some of us always have cool cylinder and oil temps in cruise and some don't, everyone runs to "are you using carb heat?" No, it's a beautiful, clear day, I'm not using carb heat. I have a lot of hills to die on with this plane until Wing42 gets us a patch 🤣
A bit of constructive criticism.... This plane is naturally aspirated and unpressurized, so what were you doing at 15,000', or descending at 1000-2000fpm? That's really not where this plane should go. Also, I'm surprised you didn't blow fuses or kill the battery from leaving the landing lights on the whole flight :). Or blow the engines from running more than 60% mixture above about 6000', and having the rather clunky multi-function engine temperature gauge watching carb heat, which as currently modeled is fire-and-forget, whereas CHT is actually an issue, especially as you have no cowl flaps.
That said, good video overall. And kudos for not blowing engines despite the oil temp gauges claiming to be in F but actually display in C, so you need to keep them below 100^ on the gauges instead of 165^ as stated in the manual. I thought your oil pressure was a bit high most of the time--it should be below 110pis---but that I attribute to not leaning enough with your extreme altitude, or more likely hitting the leaning limit due to greatly exceeding the altitude this plane was intended for.
I must say, I was quite impressed that you were able to maintain a modern PAPI glideslope with this machine. I find she falls out of the sky once you put the gear down so I approach high until established on the final course while still far enough out for the very slow-moving gear to extend (or be hand-cranked). But that's just me. Again, kudos to you for holding the PAPI, although I think that puts more wear on the engines due to having to throttle up towards the end while in a low-speed configuration.
Hi Bullethead,
Yeah, that's all pretty fair criticism. Just to explain my thought processes a little for what it's worth;
For whatever reason, when I saw the B247 I had visions of adventures in far off lands haha (I know in reality it probably didn't do an awful lot of that, at least not in its heyday); I fancied a flight in Peru and in my head it was a knackered old 247 getting flogged around the region on cargo runs, pilots on oxygen etc. A bit demanding for the B247 perhaps, but I was well within the aircrafts service ceiling I believe? I do think it hindsight it probably wasn't a very appropriate / fair test for the aircraft, but then again we made it work. The descent rate was simply a function of coming in over the mountains; obviously that would have been rather uncomfortable for the pilots, but for the sake of the video, I didn't really want to be orbiting in the descent etc.
Landing lights were definitely an omission on my part but hey, we're all human (and the lack of checklists didn't help) ; )
The same goes for the rest of your points really: I didn't feel that the documentation provided quite enough information to make it clear how the aircraft ought to be operated. I was just going off feel for leaning the engines and I stuck with the carb temps as the CHT's seemed to be erroneous.
I certainly appreciate the feedback and whilst we did manage to get the aircraft from A to B in one piece, it really highlights my point, that a lot of us are left filling in the blanks without adequate documentation. I always like to try and fly an aircraft accurately, but here I felt I didn't have a whole lot to go off and clearly I missed the mark in some areas.
It's not to be overly critical of Wing42, as it's very impressive what they have managed to achieve. An aircraft this complex really need the documentation (and gauge functionality) to back it up though, otherwise it's tricky for many of us to know how to handle it in a meaningful way.
Cheers again and all the best! : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations I'm no expert on the 247 and I agree that the docs could do with a LOT more detail. And also, the gauges should work properly ;).
Here's an example of my own misadventures with this plane. I decided to test the feathering system as described in the docs. But that requires the oil Ps and Ts to be right, and that requires the CHTs to be right, and none of those gauges seem to work right, so you can't be sure. I just figured that since the engines were running OK and not burning. and had been for some time, things must be fine regardless of what the gauges said.
So, I got to the specified RPM and pushed a feather button. And nothing happened. Nor did the button come back to the up position as expected. Hmm. I figured I'd encountered a random malfunction, made note that #1 wouldn't feather, and pushed #2. Same thing. Hmm, total feather malfunction. Well, let's hope we don't lose an engine. So I took off.
However, 100 miles or so later, the oil got to its happy place, whatever that is, and suddenly both engines feathered because the buttons were still down so the valves were still in that position. So, dual engine failure but at least the props feathered. And couldn't be unfeathered. Fortunately, there was an airfield within gliding distance and I was able to hand-crank the gear down just in time ;).
So, lesson learned. Until the gauges get fixed, don't test feathering :D And I wonder why the engines kept running (at all) if the oil wasn't right for feathering? Something seems wrong there. But anyway, this clearly proves there's some complex stuff going on under the hood even if it's not working as intended yet.
What's the scenery at the take-off airport?
Hi Chris,
It's Chagaul Airport (SPGL) in Peru. It's one of the sim's default "handcrafted" airports, hence why it looks a bit more impressive than usual.
I hope that helps! All the best : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations perfect, thanks!
Cheers Chris! You’re most welcome : )
Is Into the Blue using an advanced flight model of the plane? I mean does it have an easy or normal mode, along with realistic?
Changing engine oil grade goes farther than I want to go etc.
@@Rage-td9wv I presume Into the Blue is using the same model as all the rest of us. The airplane does have a couple of easier modes, through the clipboard. You can turn on or off the "realistic starting" so that basically you just fire it up without having to worry about timing the mesh just right and priming it etc. You can also turn off systems failures all together. If you don't want to worry about oil grades, then you should probably do this, because the wrong oil grade will otherwise lead to an engine failure or even fire.
But, honestly, it's still not a quick hop in and fly kind of experience. For example, even with failures turned off, it still more or less requires you load fuel, passengers, and cargo through the clipboard process, which means watching the percentage counter tick down as Jack pumps gas for you. It's faster than pumping gas in real life, but not as fast as adjusting the fuel in the sim's weight and balance menu, which normally doesn't work with this airplane very well.
Similarly, there are absolutely no concessions to modern avionics in this plane. Not just no magenta line. No VOR. No NDB. No ADF. Just the radio range finder that you have to listen to morse code to get a fix. It's amazing that it works, and if you are interested in meticulously researched recrations of a global radio navigation system from the 1930s, this is stunning. But if that isn't something that gets you out of bed in the morning, it's more likely to just be a frustrating squeaky noise.
I think for some people that they might want more of a middle ground than this plane offers. You can either go full immersion, or you have to nerf it pretty hard. Like you can turn off failures, use control e to start it, and use MSFS's VFR nav map as a defacto GPS. Some people might like a bit of challenge, but not quite that much. For example, by the 1940s many of these planes were equiped with an RDF loop that could give you a read out similar to an NDB ADF, which might open up more options for people who want to fly the plane, but don't want to deal with having to fly the beam or do celestial navigation.
Another perfect and extremely helpful Answer! Thanks Austin : )
Hi Rage,
As Austin writes: The aircraft does have some options to reduce the difficulty; failures can be turned off, which dramatically reduces the complexity of the addon. It is possible to start with CNTL-E etc. To be honest though, it’s not an addon I would look to purchase if you enjoy a more relaxing simming experience. The way the addon works, it doesn’t really lend itself to a quick and easy flight.
For a more enjoyable “casual” vintage experience, I would perhaps consider the Grumman Goose instead : )
Cheers and all the best!
I can't figure out how to turn on the radio for ATC?
Small dial on the far left side of the cockpit. White numbers vertically 1##.# - you click on the round face of the dial and rotate it left or right to set the 1## and then you move the lever bellow left or right to set the decimal. No 0.05 frequency increments, though, and the plane won't allow MSFS to auto-tune the frequency for you, so you'll just have to live without those frequencies.
Hi Rage,
Hopefully Austin’s very helpful response has got you on the right tracks? For the sake of historical accuracy, you’ll find the radio is of somewhat limited use in the sim I’m afraid.
All the best : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations I like old planes, but don't want their crap. The DC6 has a modern radio as does the updated JU 52. Old planes, but should have the option for modern radio. I haven't tried it yet as I've gotten other games to play with. Hopefully I can get it turned on next time, but usually fly the DC 6.
Oh, last time when I tried when I wrote the post, I needed to radio for permissionto taxi.
Haha, I can definitely see where you’re coming from Rage. I think having the option is really always the key. Some people like the historical accuracy, which I can totally understand, but of course we want these aircraft to be practical in the sim (just as they would have to be in the real-world these days). It would be very easy for the devs to add a modern radio option via the clipboard, hopefully they will do that at some point.
Cheers! : )
So why did your game not begin with you sitting at the end of the runway, engines running, ready for takeoff?
How do I begin a game like that? As though I am walking up to my parked airplane... How?
When you select an airport on the world map, if you zoom in far enough on the departure airport, you'll see smaller dots---those are parking spots, and if you choose one of those to start at, you'll load in with your plane in a cold and dark state. You can also click on the drop down menu that lists the runway and pick a spot that way, but at anything other than the smallest airports the list of spaces you'll get will be way too long to be helpful. Worth noting, however, that a lot of small bush fields don't have these spots available though if you're into that specific kind of flying.
Thanks very much for offering up the help zOMGREI, much appreciated! : )
I’ve always thought it was rather annoying that smaller strips don’t have any parking spots / there’s no tick-box option to start from cold and dark - but there you go. . .
All the best!
@@IntotheBlueSimulations Yeah, they absolutely need a tick box for starting cold and dark, especially with the stuff coming out with persistent ownership/wear and tear mechanics like the Milviz 310 that can only track the persistent condition of the plane if it's cold and dark upon loading in. I need to see if there's an easy way to teleport planes using slew mode, because the way I used to get around this was by starting in a parking space at a larger airport and then having OnAir use slew to plop me down at the bush field in a cold and dark state, but I don't pay for that anymore and need some other way to accomplish the same thing now. Manually controlling slew is too hard to do with any sort of precision, so that's out of the question.
Yeah, I didn’t even think about the persistent state issue actually. So far as I can tell, there is no decent workaround for the issue currently (even slew is only of use *if* there happens to be another suitable) airfield nearby - one of the many little omissions on Asobo’s part, that makes the sim feel a bit more “gamey” I would say.
Ah well, fingers crossed it will get sorted in the future!
All the best : )
amazing aircraft and bad its not on console
The 247 is indeed a really nice aircraft overall (some amazing features); still a few bugs to iron out, which I was hoping we might have seen done by now. . . It is a real shame the aircraft is not on the console, hopefully that will change come post-SU10.
All the best : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations DC6 ever coming to console?
Yeah, I believe it should be once Asobo has fixed up the WASM issues (which again, should be happening as part of SU10).
All the best : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations its amazing how long the take to fix things in 2022
Not another one I'm nudged into buying by another of your very enjoyable vids!! 😀 Have you considered a career in politics? Oh well, at least this one's only fifteen quid....
Haha, I can only apologise John - I know the channel probably makes for quite expensive viewing on occasion XD
As you say though; at least this one is cheap and (a few issues aside) it would be cheap at twice the price!
Haha, a career in politics? Can I give you a non-committal answer and then get back to you depending on how I go? ; )
Cheers!
how are you only doing 110 mph at full throttle. The 247 had a cruising speed of 189mph. that climbing speed was scary 80-90 f@cking mph wtf?! almost a deliberate stall.
Hello Jason,
Not to say that you’re right or wrong (I’m not all that familiar with the 247 myself and the product manual gives very little detail) but, I was getting about 150mph in the cruise, at full throttle, which seems pretty reasonable given the high altitude and coincides pretty well with a 189mph cruise speed (which I assume is a TAS, rather than an IAS?). Whilst I did have the climb speed back at around 90mph at some points, it was closer to 100-110mph most of the time; the landing speed of the B247 is apparently 62mph so, I wasn’t particularly close to the stall speed (and with the terrain, I was prioritising climb performance over speed). Again, I could have all of that completely wrong but, without the details being provided in the manual, I was left to make some educated guesses.
I hope that clarifies things a little. All the best
Excellent review as usual, I only regret after use it that the 3D model is not perfect, the nose is too facetized, the textures are often too dull and poorly done such as non-aligned rivet lines between two faces. Ok the price is low but it's frustrating to not have good systems and good 3D model. Often is the opposite, perfect 3D model but poor systems. I hope one day we will have the both
Thank very much Franck, glad you enjoyed it!
I must admit that I didn't get that close in with the model on this occasion, to notice the rivets etc, I agree that I've seen better textures out there though. Personally I'm the kind of simmer that wants the external model to look half-decent at a distance and for the virtual cockpit to be a work of art - I know we're all different though.
Wing42 are continuing to work on the aircraft, so hopefully they will address some of your issues in the process : )
Cheers and all the best!
Your talking like you are doing flights for FSEconomy!
Ahh, not in this case Dragunov haha. I have certainly used FSEconomy in the past, but don’t tend to have the time to dedicate to it these days. I sometimes just like to throw a little hypothetical mission into the flight, just to give it a bit more “purpose” and a bit of a storyline etc : )
Cheers and all the best!
Did you check the oil type according to the area?
Did you paid attention to the friction levers regarding the mouse push pull?
I am under the impression you need to learn a bit more...
Hi Filipe,
Yes, I checked the oil type and changed it out based on ambient temperature (as per Wing42’s guidance).
I didn’t realise the friction levers had that effect no (does it make mention of this in the manual?). It’s perhaps a slightly strange way of doing things, but certainly nice to see that Wing42 modelled it!
I’m always happy to learn more! It’s not through a lack of effort that I missed anything though. I always try and do my homework ahead of a review; but I’m only human, we all miss things, make mistakes etc from time to time ; )
All the best!
You know, despite its appealing visuals, this is the most bugged paid-for aircraft that i've ever flown in MSFS, and not by a little, by a lot. For my part i won't be be buying anything Wing42 related again, i love your reviews mate but on this occasion i feel you gave this aircraft too much of a pass.
Hi Ahiba,
Yes, sadly the B247 has some pretty major issues and it's very disappointing to see that the developer has done nothing to fix them up (I really thought he would). I don't feel that I let anything slide with the product / review - I think I pointed out all of the aircraft's major flaws as I went? I try to simply demonstrate an addon during my reviews and then let the viewer form their own opinions. For sure I always have my own input, but I did say that I felt the product had some rather "game breaking" bugs in its current state. Perhaps I could have articulated my points better. . .
I'm really glad you're enjoying the reviews broadly though; of course there will be disagreements from time to time : )
Cheers and all the best!
@@IntotheBlueSimulations Your channel is awesome, certainly no arguments about that :)
Haha, well thank you very much Ahiba, that’s very kind of you to say! : )
If all you do is complain don't fly the damn thing uh
Who are you talking to?
Hi Bruce,
It’s not “complaining”, it’s a review. My take on a review, is to try and point out the good and the bad to the viewer. I don’t take denigrating peoples hard work lightly, but I don’t think there was any criticism I offered in the video that wasn’t true?
I think the Boeing 247 is a very nice offering from Wing42! Its clear they have put a lot of love and work into the aircraft and it’s fantastic that they’ve chosen to sell it at such a low price. I wholeheartedly hope that as many people support them as possible and I said as much during the video. The product isn’t without fault though; I point out said faults, simply so that the customer knows what they’re buying.
I’m sure that Wing42 will address the issues that the aircraft has and they deserve every success going forward!
All the best!
I wish they'd spent as much time fixing bugs as they did putting soap depsensers in the bathroom.
This airplane is badly bugged & unflyable. Do not buy!
Fair criticism Nottiification. Working gauges would certainly have been preferable to a working soap dispenser.
The B247 certainly needs some work, but I think Wing42 will get it to where it needs to be; it’s clear that they invested a lot of hard work and passion into the addon.
Cheers and all the best : )
I think its interesting the huge majority of reviews of this aircraft are all gushing about the amazing level of detail.
But apparently none of these people have actually tried to fly the plane anywhere or they would have run into these bugs.
Am I the only person who actually expects these things to fly? Everybody else just looks at the pretty pixels & gives it 5 stars? Is that where this is going? These are just skins with no attention paid to flight dynamics or actually making sure the flipping thing works?
@@IntotheBlueSimulations I'd just like to point out that over a month later this show-stopping bug still hasnt been fixed. The aircraft is still unflyable.
Wing42 sucks... i will never buy another one of their aircraft.
Very true re the bugs not having been addressed. Perhaps they’re fairly complex to correct (the gauges shouldn’t be, but the engine modelling perhaps), but I too am disappointed that we’ve seen no updates to the aircraft thus far. . .
@@IntotheBlueSimulations They never even replied to my email.
Aw well, after 3 hours solid trying to start the engines...I have to give up on this! Too much time wasted on a basic procedure that wont work for me! Sorry Mr. Dev. This is too quirky for me. Dont want the easy start option, thats too MSFS! Speaking of that, the "Easy" engine option doesnt work properly either. Drop below 1200 rpm and engines stop? The Morse Radio doesnt work for me either, there is no sound. Seems like this in Alpha stage of release! Shame on you! This is a "Promises much and delivers nothing" sim! £14 wasted! I guess this isnt A2A yet.....? My Summary..AWEFUL!
Don’t give up on it, you’ll get there! I had problems too and here’s how I solved them;
1~Always leave the aircraft switches, fuel selectors etc OFF when you finish your flight.
2~ I set the fuel 100% in msfs but then set it in the aircraft via the clipboard.
3~ cycle the fuel selectors OFF~ON~OFF then set as req.
4~ prime with about 6~8 pushes on the primer, (remember, operate the fuel pressure pump first) but don’t be tempted to keep priming if it doesn’t start first time, it’ll catch fire!
5~ set your throttles about 30% open.
6~ press the button for the inertia starter and keep pumping the fuel pump.
7~ once inertia starter is up to speed press the engage button BUT KEEP YOUR MOUSE PRESSED ON IT, don’t just click it.
Obviously your mags etc need to be set, this is about the fuel system.
Good luck!
One issue I had David; the clipboard was showing me fully-fueled, but when I eventually came to look at the sim's load and balance menu, the tanks were showing empty. I spent nearly an hour trying to start the aircraft in this configuration, thinking I simply didn't have to knack of things haha (so that might be worth checking if you give it another go).
The nav radio does work. The noise can be a bit faint, but I find that to be the case with most radio noises in MSFS (identifier sounds etc). Sometimes you also have to adjust the frequency ever so slightly to pick up a stronger signal as well.
The addon definitely has its issues currently, but the fundamentals should work ok.
All the best!
Poor simulation of a A2A type. Can't start engines after 3 hours of trying! Even switching to easy mode caused cut out below 1200 rpm. I have deleted this from my sim after it caused a CTD! Nice try but a fail I am afraid!
Hopefully my info on your other message will have been of some use David.
That's unfortunate re the CTD. That has been (for me at least) one of MSFS' strengths to date; I know others aren't so lucky, but I very rarely experience CTD's - to the point where when I do, I really sit up and notice.
All the best!
The quality of your videos always amazes me. I take great pleasure just from the atmosphere you are creating, including the choice of background music. This aircraft I am hesitating to buy because of the lack of autopilot. As you said, I don't mind if it isn't an autopilot directly integrated in the instrumentation or a choice of inclusion of modern avionic (like a GNS430 and a simple AP). For long flights, it is definitively a plus as I don't see myself doing stick & rudder for multiple hours... Close to real life but we all have busy lives and being able to accelerate time for multiple hours flights is a nice possibility. I do a lot of OnAir missions and like being able to skip long ocean or desert crossings. Otherwise, this looks like a very nice addon. An step-up from the Lockheed Electra for instance that has a few issues
Thank you very much Cyril, that's always lovely to hear! I certainly try and elevate my videos beyond a simple review where I can : )
Yes, the lack of autopilot is obviously historically accurate and I wouldn't want to see modern avionics jammed into the cockpit by default; but it's always nice to give people options - at the very least from the clipboard. As you say, we all have different ways we like to fly and not everyone wants to be hands-on all the time. Hopefully it's something Wing42 will consider at a later date.
I don't own the Electra myself, but from I have seen, the B247 is certainly a far superior product.
Thanks again and all the best!
I recon you didn't enable realistic engine start? Not a problem if you didn't just would be cool to let us know.
Haha, ouch! How could you suggest such a thing Juraci? XD
I did actually have it turned on, but there was a lot of practice before this video haha ; )
All the best! : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations awesome thank you. Your content is awesome.
Thanks very much Juraci! Very kind of you to say and I’m really glad you’re enjoying the content : )
Cheers!